The Republican Party Is Not Going Away

SharpshooterTom

One thing I've noticed and payed attention to over the past few years are peoples predictions that the Republican party would cease to exist after Bush in 08'. James Carville and others predicted that the GOP would not get any form of power for at least the next 40 years, back then, however within only two years as seen they regained the house.

The Republican Party has made a big improvement of the past 4 years, gains in both houses and potential popular vote victory this time round after losing by 7.2% last time. Obama it appears will hang on, but only just. The prediction that the Republican party and the GOP right wing would disappear with the Obama revolution has turned out to be a false one.

In 2008, I made the prediction that Obama would be a two term president as soon as he was first elected as I thought he was unbeatable. Charisma and style wins elections, not necessarily policies and Obama has that in abundance.

I think in 2016, when Obama and his likeable charismatic style goes, I think the Republican party will win the presidency back, the GOP bench looks a lot stronger with Rubio, Christie, Daniels, Brown etc. Democrats not so much IMO.

I suspect the Republican party will continue just block Obama for the next four years and ride him out. We've already heard Obama has threatened he would wash Boehners car to get a budget deal, meaning he's probably going to concede everything to him again, which is what the Republican party wants to hear.

As I say the Republican party, Fox News, the hard right wing, has not gone yet, not by a long shot and it appears perhaps in 4 years time, when Obama is gone, they might just be on the verge of coming back. Who would have thought that after the Bush years finishing with one of the lowest approval ratings of all time.

Manic Moran

Who would have thought that after the Bush years finishing with one of the lowest approval ratings of all time.

Pretty much anyone who isn't blinded by a hatred of the Republican party and their ideals, I would have thought. Not saying you are, just all the stuff about the Republicans being permanently destroyed by Bush always struck me more as gleeful handwringing than rational thought.

sheikhnguyen

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

I think in 2016, when Obama and his likeable charismatic style goes, I think the Republican party will win the presidency back, the GOP bench looks a lot stronger with Rubio, Christie, Daniels, Brown etc. Democrats not so much IMO.

I disagree. The Dems have real depth for 2016. Hillary, O'Malley, Cuomo and for vice president they have some great latinos to help cement that group in the form of Villaraigosa the Mayor of LA, and that keynote speech by Julian Castro was no mistake either that was them rolling out a future star. Expect to see him on a ticket within the next 3-4 cycles provided he doesn't muck it up.

Ozymandius2011

They are certainly not going away as long as they have the old Jim Crow vote in the South locked up because of the "Southern Strategy", and while wealthy Americans see them as a bullwark against the Democratic party's slightly left-of-center economic policies. Wall St want Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxeley repealed so they can return to the activities that landed the world in this mess. So I agree with you - they are not going anywhere.

Brian?

They could well hold 32-33 state Governeships after this election as well as the house. A fairly decent showing.

Romney just happens to be a very poor candidate. Obama was vulnerable and they blew it.

nagilum2

Brian? wrote: »

They could well hold 32-33 state Governeships after this election as well as the house. A fairly decent showing.

Romney just happens to be a very poor candidate. Obama was vulnerable and they blew it.

The biggest problem almost any Republican candidate is going to have is the requirement to take some very right wing social positions in order to get the nomination. At a local level, they don't have to do that. The religious right has a massive influence over the party that is to the Republicans detriment at the national level and really prevents them from getting more of the young and independent vote (at least in my opinion).

Manic Moran

nagilum2 wrote: »

The biggest problem almost any Republican candidate is going to have is the requirement to take some very right wing social positions in order to get the nomination. At a local level, they don't have to do that. The religious right has a massive influence over the party that is to the Republicans detriment at the national level and really prevents them from getting more of the young and independent vote (at least in my opinion).

No, you're not far off, I don't think.

I do, however, think that you're overstating the religious influence a little bit, and understating the amount of people that hold 'good ol' american values' like military service and firearms ownership, neither of which have huge traction amongst the Democratic contingent. Look at Gov Schweitzer, for example, a Dem in a fairly conservative State.

nagilum2

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, you're not far off, I don't think.

I do, however, think that you're overstating the religious influence a little bit, and understating the amount of people that hold 'good ol' american values' like military service and firearms ownership, neither of which have huge traction amongst the Democratic contingent. Look at Gov Schweitzer, for example, a Dem in a fairly conservative State.

True, but those issues aren't turnoff issues for democrats. Very few american voters (maybe outside of Berkeley CA) are going to not vote for someone who supports military service and/or firearms rights. Those are both very mainstream popular positions in the US. As you highlighted with Gov. Schweitzer (who by the way I think would be a GREAT nominee for the Dems in 2016), there are many Democrats who are staunch defenders of the 2nd amendment.

The issues I was mainly referring to ware the religious issues - particularly the way the religious beliefs of the extreme right evangelicals influence policy and legislative positions of republican nominees. I don't think the religious right is a majority of republican party voters by any means, but they have a very large sway in the primary process because they always vote. So you get candidates who are virtually forced to declare that they will adopt very anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-drug laws at the federal level (key distinction) if elected in order to capture that block. These are not popular positions, particularly among libertarian minded voters that might otherwise be inclined to tilt republican. Libertarian minded voters see a party that talks a good game about small limited government, yet have no issues using the strong arm of big government to overrule state decisions when it suits their social agenda.

Which brings up the other big issue that libertarian minded individuals have with the republican party. They also talk a good game on fiscal discipline, but in recent history they've only exhibited fiscal discipline when there's a democrat foil in the white house. When Bush was president, they were perfectly happy spending money they didn't have and passing the bank bailouts.

[-0-]

The Republicans were actually a great party before Reagan.

Manic Moran

nagilum2 wrote: »

True, but those issues aren't turnoff issues for democrats. Very few american voters (maybe outside of Berkeley CA) are going to not vote for someone who supports military service and/or firearms rights. Those are both very mainstream popular positions in the US. As you highlighted with Gov. Schweitzer (who by the way I think would be a GREAT nominee for the Dems in 2016), there are many Democrats who are staunch defenders of the 2nd amendment.

Oh, there are, but unfortunately the question is what weight of nomination votes they have. Since the Democratic party nomination process reflects both the percentage of voters who voted D in the last election and also the State's EC vote, large, heavily D States like California, Illinois, Massachussets, and New York have particular sway. And assuming that their State governments are vaguely representative of the majority of their State's denizens, looking at their firearms laws (strictest in the nation, pretty much) probably gives an indication as to just how widespread firearm support is amongst the Ds that hold the power with regards to nominations.

Ozymandius2011

To be competitive in a election in the NE again, the GOP must return to its moderate roots and cast aside the religious nuts of the Christian Coalition, Family Research Council (labelled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre), and end their war on minority voting rights. New York is a minority-majority state now. In short they should be the party of Lincoln. The last GOP President In had respect for was Bush Snr, who tried to pressure Israel to end its expansionist policies.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Higher

I have to say I don't actually mind Romeny and believe hes actually quite moderate outside of election times.

However, after reading about the actions of the GOP trying to intimidate minorities from casting their vote, along with the nonsense on GOP forums (google it, 90% of posts talk about conspiracies that Obama is a Muslim sleeper agent) I just can't bring myself to ever like them. Even at the conventions the Democratic had people of all religions, all races, in short the TRUE America whereas the GOP convention was just full of old, white peope.

The lies, the undeniable racist undertone of a lot of GOP members, its lack of diversity and its extremist element simply disgusts me.

Suryavarman

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

To be competitive in a election in the NE again, the GOP must return to its moderate roots and cast aside the religious nuts of the Christian Coalition, Family Research Council (labelled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre), and end their war on minority voting rights. New York is a minority-majority state now. In short they should be the party of Lincoln. The last GOP President In had respect for was Bush Snr, who tried to pressure Israel to end its expansionist policies.

Be the party of Lincoln? So you you want them to participate in mass murder and have no respect for the constitution or the rule of law? I think you'll find that they are pretty much in favour of that at the moment.

Brian?

Suryavarman wrote: »

Be the party of Lincoln? So you you want them to participate in mass murder and have no respect for the constitution or the rule of law? I think you'll find that they are pretty much in favour of that at the moment.

Honest Abe was a mass murdering autocrat? Oh dear.

Ozymandius2011

They are trying to reintroduce Jim Crow by the back door voter suppression and that males them a threat to democracy.

LuckyLloyd

Demographics Demographics Demographics

Demographics!

Ozymandius2011

Legal challenge to Ohio voting machines begins. Bush appointed Judge Frost says he will rule after the polls have opened!

Ironically, the controversial Ohio voting machines are made in John Galt Boulevard, whicb is named after the main protagonist in Ayn Rand's famous novel, Atlas Shrugged.

Suryavarman

Brian? wrote: »

Honest Abe was a mass murdering autocrat? Oh dear.

Around 600,000 American soldiers died during the civil war which is more than any other war in US history. That equates to around 2% of the US population at that time. So yes he was a mass murderer. He also suspended habeas corpus and completely rejected any notion that The United States was a voluntary union.

Einhard

Suryavarman wrote: »

Around 600,000 American soldiers died during the civil war which is more than any other war in US history. That equates to around 2% of the US population at that time. So yes he was a mass murderer. He also suspended habeas corpus and completely rejected any notion that The United States was a voluntary union.

Because it wasn't/isn't a voluntary union.

MadYaker

One problem I see coming down the tracks for the GOP is the fact that they are really only supported by white people, who in about 30 - 40 years will no longer make up the majority of the US population. This is as a result of their immigration policies, and their stance on religious issues, being evangelical christians, while the Hispanics who are the largest of the non white demographic groups, and also the one predicted to grow the most, are catholics.

Also the fact that prospective GOP candidates for the Presidency have to preach fairly far right views which are unpalatable to the majority in order to get the nomination doesn't make things easy for people like Romney.

Brian?

Suryavarman wrote: »

Around 600,000 American soldiers died during the civil war which is more than any other war in US history. That equates to around 2% of the US population at that time. So yes he was a mass murderer. He also suspended habeas corpus and completely rejected any notion that The United States was a voluntary union.

The Supreme court of the USA ruled that it isn't a voluntary union. It was also perfectly constitutional for Lincoln to suspend habeus corpus, morally questionable though.

That's 2 down. He was the commander in chief of the union army. Is it your contention that every president who was a war time commander in chief was a mass murderer? Let's remember at this point who declares war.